17 May 2016

India is introducing legislation to ban maps or satellite images of the country unless they are approved by government.

The new bill, which would affect digital maps from Google, Apple, and Uber, is facing stiff opposition from campaign groups.

It also bans “wrong” information, including disputed international borders.

The government said the rules would not create barriers to business if the bill became law.

The bill bans all types of geospatial information, maps, raw data or photographs, acquired by any means, including satellite photography.

Offenders could be fined up to 1bn rupees (£10.4m).

It also requires anyone who has already gathered such information to apply for a licence to keep it.

It was designed to regulate both the creation and distribution of geospatial information in India “which is likely to affect the security, sovereignty and integrity” of the country, the Ministry of Home Affairs said.

For India, the Sino-Pakistan Nexus continues to threaten its national security. Both China and Pakistan have disputes with India, which remains unresolved; whether it is Pakistan’s protracted stand on Kashmir or the problem in demarcating McMahon Line, which continues to remain ‘Bone of contention’ between India and China.

Tensions in the South China Sea and continued warnings about Chinese militarization of the disputed areas (Paracels and Spratlys) have led USA and its allies to sharpen focus on Chinese Air Force acquisitions and technological advances.

The PLAAF currently has approximately 2,200 operational aircraft, nearly 600 of which are considered modern.

The U.S. Air Force’s technological air power superiority over China is rapidly diminishing in light of rapid Chinese modernization of fighter jets, missiles, air-to-air weapons, cargo planes and stealth aircraft. The PLAAF currently has approximately 2,200 operational aircraft, nearly 600 of which are considered modern.

America is the world’s sole super power with immense economic clout and unbridled diplomatic access and influence over nearly all governments across the world. This enables them to conduct what are “supposedly” clandestine or covert operations world-wide by their SOF with the tacit approval of the host country, thereby allowing both sides to maintain deniability to avoid political fallout, both international and domestic. Secondly, America spends US$10 Billion (not accounting for manpower or equipment costs) on 66000 SOF operatives whereas we spend US $ 48 Billion on the equipping and paying of our 1.3 million strong defence forces and are yet to be able to break free of our regional straight jacket.

…there are some within our military establishment, self-professed experts on special operations, who have made their careers promoting these capabilities in the fond hope that our Special Forces would soon emulate their American counterparts…

One of the major fall-outs of America’s aggressive pursuit of radical Islamic terror groups worldwide in its “Global War on Terror” (GWOT), following the tragic events of 9/11, has been the iconic status that their Special Operations Forces (SOF) enjoy today. True, sufficient documentary evidence exists in public domain that clearly points to the fact that the SOF supplanted the CIA as the lead agency for countering terrorism. That however, is no reason to be taken in by the dominant narrative that the SOF, a bunch of expertly trained and highly motivated killing machines, much like those depicted in Hollywood movies that have somehow, with their indomitable will and untiring efforts, made America a safer place.

The irony of India is that government after government has asked the Army to downsize without telling them what is the ‘Right Size’ of the Army the nation should have? To arrive at the ‘right size’, you need a national security strategy (NSS) and a comprehensive defence review (CDR). Unfortunately, the present government has also not initiated such process despite completing two years in office. The Army raised HQ 14 Corps as a consequence to the Kargil intrusions and HQ South Western Command in response to Op ‘Parakram’. The Long Term Integrated Procurement Plans (LTIPPs) are chalked out in absence of a NSS and CDR. Are anymore examples needed for adhocism in our defence?

As per media, the Army Chief has ordered a study to determine how the force, battling a fund squeeze, can be right-sized. The study is to be completed by end August for initiating targeted reductions to improve the force’s tooth-to-tail ratio — the number of personnel (tail) required to support a combat soldier (tooth). The report says that the Army Chief’s order have come barely five months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that “modernization and expansion of forces at the same time is a difficult and unnecessary goal”. So one may surmise that this is study is in-line with similar studies that the Army periodically conducts. If it was direct consequences of the statement by the Prime Minister, as the media suggests, why should the Army Chief wait five months to order it?

The cease-fire of January I, 1949 ended the First Kashmir War but did nothing to improve the relations between Pakistan and India. Kashmir remained the bone of contention. Nehruji offered a no war pact to Pakistan. Pakistan said that such a pact could only be signed after an honourable solution of the Kashmir issue. Thus while India sought peace and development, Pakistan sought Kashmir and to build a military capability strong enough to defeat India.

In the early fifties, United States, in a bid to contain the Soviet Union and spread of communism, formed a number of regional military groups like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and South East Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The concept was that each member would pour in resources (mainly manpower resources) for collective defence of the area against the Soviet threat and spread of communism.

In return, United States pledged to assist the member states economically and militarily. This provided Pakistan an opportunity to strengthen its armed forces at minimal cost. Pakistan joined CENTO and SEATO in September 1955. India, under Nehruji, the architect of the Non Aligned Movement, chose to remain non­aligned. Pakistan benefited greatly from joining the mutual defence treaties sponsored by US. In the period between 1954 to 1965, Pakistan received military aid worth $ 1.5 billion. The equipment included Patton tanks, Sabre jets, FI04 Star Fighter aircraft, MI rifles, Universal machine guns, mortars, recoilless rifles, guns and every other conceivable type of defence equipment.

The lightning campaign launched by the Indian Army in Dec 1971 which resulted in the birth of a new nation — Bangladesh, is surely the greatest feat of arms in our history. As happens in any war, many issue become controversial with differing perceptions and opinions. ’71 war was no exception. It has its fairs share of issues which have retained their mystery over the years. With most of the participants dead, these mysteries will perhaps continue to remain so.

In his book Surrender at Dacca —Birth of a Nation Gen Jacob claims that in April ’71 Sam rang him up and said Eastern Command needs to march into East Pakistan immediately which Gen Jacob refused to do.

Did Sam actually tell Mrs. Gandhi what he claimed?

Sam is universally credited for withstanding pressure from Mrs. Gandhi and her cabinet colleagues to March into Bangladesh in April ’71 itself. In an interview to Quarter Deck, a publication of The Ex servicemen’s Affairs Cell of the Indian Navy in 1996. Sam recounts verbatim, what transpired at the Cabinet Meeting. Gen Jacob, who was Chief of Staff, Eastern Command in 71′ puts it differently. In his book Surrender at Dacca —Birth of a Nation he claims that in April ’71 Sam rang him up and said Eastern Command needs to march into East Pakistan immediately which Gen Jacob refused to do. Gen Jacob, however gives credit to Sam for standing up to Mrs. Gandhi and not marching into East Pakistan in April ’71.

It has just been over a year since Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) during his inaugural state visit to Pakistan in April 2015. What has been the progress of the construction of the megaproject since then? Zhang Baozhong, the chairman of China Overseas Ports, the company that will run the Pakistani port of Gwadar, stated in late April 2016 that Gwadar will commence full operations by the end of 2016. Gwadar is essential to CPEC as it will connect CPEC with shipping on the Arabian Sea; and being close to the Straits of Hormuz, will serve as a strategic gateway for Middle Eastern oil shipments to be transported overland to China via CPEC’s planned oil pipelines. Logistics will be transformed by CPEC, as container ships that today have to make the “the nearly 13,000 km sea voyage from Tianjin to the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Malacca and around India” can be replaced by cheaper container trucks that make “a mere 2,000 km road journey from Kashgar to Gwadar.”1

Infrastructure that will connect Gwadar with the Chinese city of Kashgar in Xinjiang include highways and railways. Progress has been made this past year on the highway network. A 335 km section of the Karakoram Highway between the Sino-Pakistani border city of Khunjerab to Raikot has been upgraded, and a 59 km section of the Hazara Motorway between Burhan and Havelian is expected to be completed by the end of 2017.2 Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is scheduled to visit Dera Ismael Khan on May 17, 2016 to inaugurate the CPEC Western Route. The initial phase of the Western Route—which when completed will connect Havelian with Gwadar—consists of a 285 km highway between Hakla and Yarik, including “eleven interchanges, nineteen flyovers, fifteen bridges, seventy-four underpasses, two hundred fifty-nine culverts, and three major bridges.”3 For the CPEC Eastern Route, construction work is expected to begin soon as China’s State Council has just approved a 4.2 billion USD concessionary loan package for a 120 km section of the Karakoram Highway II between Thakot and Havelian, and a 392 km section of the Lahore-Karachi Motorway between Multan and Sukkur.4 Apart from the construction of highways, CPEC’s transportation infrastructure also includes the construction of rail lines, dry ports, as well as the Gwadar airport, the construction of which is scheduled to commence in the middle of 2016. Energy infrastructure—including hydropower dams—and industrial zones will also be constructed under the CPEC framework. By 2030, when projects under the third and final phase of CPEC are scheduled to be completed, the populations living in the currently underdeveloped communities in the CPEC region are expected to enjoy the economic benefits of industrial development provided by the new infrastructure.5

The South China Sea (SCS) dispute has become a key issue of concern for East Asian regional security. The nature of the conflict and lack of clarity on the issue owes much to the multiple overlapping claims of the concerned parties based on history, geographical proximity and principles of maritime law.

China’s assertiveness has made the situation much worse and has also raised security concerns in the region. The issue is not limited to the question of maritime rights or resource control but also holds significance for regional security and cooperation, external intervention, and the application of international law.

Background

China’s claims to the South China Sea are based on ‘historic rights’ backed by imperial maps of the Ming dynasty. As far back as 1958, China had promulgated the ‘Declaration on China’s Territorial Sea’, which listed the Dongsha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands, and Nansha Islands as belonging to China.1

Friday’s Department of Defense (DoD) report to Congress on Chinese military and security developments is the last issued under the Obama Administration. Amid geopolitical uncertainty, it was a respectable final contribution. Nevertheless, it suffers from an unfortunate shortcoming. The Pentagon report rightly highlighted growing concern about Beijing’s mounting maritime coercion, but passed up a rare chance to connect it with a potent player flouting the rules of the game. China’s Maritime Militia, the irregular frontline sea force of “Little Blue Men” trolling for territorial claims, receives nary a mention. Like a trident with only one full-fledged prong, a report covering only one of China’s three major sea forces in depth—and ignoring one entirely—remains regrettably incomplete.

“China is using coercive tactics…to advance their interests in ways that are calculated to fall below the threshold of provoking conflict,” DoD’s report rightly emphasizes. Asked to elaborate on such “Gray Zone” operations in yesterday afternoon’s roll-out event at the Pentagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of defense for East Asia Abraham M. Denmark stated that China’s coast guard and fishing vessels sometimes act in an “unprofessional” manner “in the vicinity of the military forces or fishing vessels of other countries in a way that’s designed to attempt to establish a degree of control around disputed features.” “These activities are designed to stay below the threshold of conflict,” Denmark explained, “but gradually demonstrate and assert claims that other countries dispute.”

U.S. sees China boosting military presence after island-building spree

Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Fiery Cross Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft provided by the United States Navy May 21, 2015. U.S….

WASHINGTON China is expected to add substantial military infrastructure, including surveillance systems, to artificial islands in the South China Sea this year, giving it long-term “civil-military bases” in the contested waters, the Pentagon said on Friday.

China condemned the U.S. Defense Department’s annual report on the Chinese military on Sunday, calling it deliberate distortion that has “severely damaged” mutual trust.

In its annual report to Congress on Chinese military activities, the U.S. Defense Department said on Friday that China is expected to add substantial military infrastructure, including communications and surveillance systems, to artificial islands in the South China Sea this year.

The report “hyped up” China’s military threat and lack of transparency, “deliberately distorted” Chinese defense policies and “unfairly” depicted Chinese activities in the East and South China seas, Yang was quoted as saying.

“China follows a national defense policy that is defensive in nature,” Yang said, adding that the country’s military build-up and reforms are aimed at maintaining sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and guaranteeing China’s peaceful development.

In addition to the diplomatic retreat that India had to swallow over its relations with Nepal, especially with China gaining a new strategic depth in that Himalayan country in the wake of the blockade over the Madhesi issue, a more serious strategic threat to India may emerge if the Sino-Bhutan joint field survey over the Druk Kingdom’s disputed western border with China accedes to Beijing’s demands. Interestingly, a total silence is now being maintained by both China and Bhutan over the said field study which is supposed to have taken place in September 2015 after the conclusion of the 23rd round of Sino-Bhutan border negotiations.

India’s concern centres on the Chumbi valley, an arrow like protrusion of a part of southern Tibet separating Bhutan from the Indian state of Sikkim. It is a tri-junction of China, India and Bhutan and enjoys unparalleled strategic importance in the whole of eastern Himalayas. As it is situated very near to the Siliguri corridor, the only entry point to the north-eastern India, any Chinese thrust down the Chumbi valley and then taking control of the Siliguri corridor will cut off the north-eastern Indian states from the main land of the country. It will also mean grave threats to Kolkata and the north Bihar plains.

The disconcerting aspect from India’s point of view is the fact that Thimpu had earlier endorsed a previous technical survey of September 2013, instituting to settle the dispute arising out of China’s claim over certain areas of Bhutan in the northern sector of the country. There was no word of disapproval from China over the recommendations of the survey. Perhaps it had satisfied Beijing’s claims.

Friday’s Department of Defense (DoD) report to Congress on Chinese military and security developments is the last issued under the Obama Administration. Amid geopolitical uncertainty, it was a respectable final contribution. Nevertheless, it suffers from an unfortunate shortcoming. The Pentagon report rightly highlighted growing concern about Beijing’s mounting maritime coercion, but passed up a rare chance to connect it with a potent player flouting the rules of the game. China’s Maritime Militia, the irregular frontline sea force of “Little Blue Men” trolling for territorial claims, receives nary a mention. Like a trident with only one full-fledged prong, a report covering only one of China’s three major sea forces in depth—and ignoring one entirely—remains regrettably incomplete.

“China is using coercive tactics...to advance their interests in ways that are calculated to fall below the threshold of provoking conflict,” DoD’s report rightly emphasizes. Asked to elaborate on such “Gray Zone” operations in yesterday afternoon’s roll-out event at the Pentagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of defense for East Asia Abraham M. Denmark stated that China’s coast guard and fishing vessels sometimes act in an “unprofessional” manner “in the vicinity of the military forces or fishing vessels of other countries in a way that’s designed to attempt to establish a degree of control around disputed features.” “These activities are designed to stay below the threshold of conflict,” Denmark explained, “but gradually demonstrate and assert claims that other countries dispute.”

In its July 2013 report [1] the European Parliament identified the Wahhabi-Salafi roots of global terrorism. It was a laudable report. but it conveniently absolved the Western powers of their culpability and chose to overlook the role played by the Western powers in nurturing Islamic radicalism and jihadism since the Cold War against the erstwhile Soviet Union. The pivotal role played by the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology in radicalizing Muslims all over the world is an established fact as mentioned in the European Parliament’s report; this Wahhabi-Salafi ideology is generously sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf-based Arab petro-monarchies since the 1973 oil embargo when the price of oil quadrupled and the contribution of the Arab sheikhs towards the “spiritual well-being” of Muslims all over the world magnified proportionally; however, the Arab despots are in turn propped up by the Western powers since the Cold War; thus syllogistically speaking, the root cause of Islamic radicalism is the neocolonial powers’ manipulation of the socio-political life of the Arabs specifically, and the Muslims generally, in order to appropriate their energy resources in the context of an energy-starved industrialized world. This is the principal theme of this essay which I shall discuss in detail in the following paragraphs.

Capitalism, not religion, is the original sin of the contemporary world

Peaceful or not, Islam is only a religion just like any other cosmopolitan religion whether it’s Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism. Instead of taking an ‘essentialist’ approach, which lays emphasis on ‘essences,’ we need to look at the evolution of social phenomena in its proper historical context. For instance: to assert that human beings are evil by ‘nature’ is an essentialist approach; it overlooks the role played by ‘nurture’ in grooming human beings. Human beings are only ‘intelligent’ by nature, but they are neither good nor evil by nature; whatever they are, whether good or evil, is the outcome of their nurture or upbringing. Similarly, to pronounce that Islam is a retrogressive or violent religion is an ‘essentialist’ approach; it overlooks how Islam and the Quranic verses are interpreted by its followers depending on the subject’s socio-cultural context. For example: the Western expat Muslims who are brought up in the West and who have imbibed the Western values would interpret a Quranic verse in a liberal fashion; an urban middle class Muslim of the Muslim-majority countries would interpret the same verse rather conservatively; and a rural-tribal Muslim who has been indoctrinated by the radical clerics would find meanings in it which could be extreme. It is all about culture rather than religion or scriptures per se.

While pacifism is naïve, the Don’t Bomb Syria campaign may have a point when it comes to how best to defeat Daesh (Islamic State) – Daesh cannot simply be bombed away.

The breakdown of social and civil continuity is the major factor which allowed Daesh to rise to power. “Syria was a godsend for ISIL,”[1] and it’s precisely the genocide that not only reversed the victory of Iraq over al-Qaeda, but “led to the radicalization and disillusionment of those populations, which opened the door for the jihadi groups to hijack those movements”[2] While the ideology previously existed, left over from al-Qaeda[3], the environment Syria provided gave Daesh a significant recruitment platform, and gave their radical interpretation of Islam justification for radical social change. The dysfunctional nature of the region that allowed this rise signifies the fundamental reason why a military campaign will not solve the region’s broken dynamics. Consequently a number of assumptions must be refuted and clarified, in order to understand how to improve UK [foreign] policy as to actually defeat Daesh.

Iraq is once again in political turmoil, and once again we are hearing calls to partition the country into three ethno-sectarian cantonments: Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurd. The partition trope resurfaces periodically, most often while Iraq looks “too hard to fix.” Advocates of partition suggest that Iraq is a false construct of the century-old Sykes-Picot treaty, and that Iraqis are incapable of sustaining a heterogeneous state. Putting aside the fact that the Sykes-Picot narrative is atbestcontested, it is time to put the partition trope to the test and then, hopefully, to rest. The mostly non-Iraqi voices who want to divide the country into thirds owe the Iraqi people and the rest of the world extensive, detailed clarification. Surely, any plan to drastically restructure Iraq must be more thoughtful and detailed than the widely condemned 2003 plan to invade Iraq. At the very least, advocates for partition should address some fundamental questions. If they cannot answer these satisfactorily then they should pause before reissuing what many Iraqis view as disheartening, and even inflammatory, positions about their state.

First, who wants to break the state into three parts, either under “loose federalism” or as separate states? There appears to be no evidence that the current Sunni revolt seeks sectarian partition. Other than the outlying Islamic State terrorists, Sunni Arab Iraqis want to be part of and, in some cases to control, the state. Most Sunni Arabs I havespoken with are terrified by the idea of partition. It does not appear that leaders from Iraq’s powerful Da’wa party, or even Muqtada al-Sadr, seek partition. While the two major Kurdish parties—the PUK and the KDP—do seek eventual partition or confederation for themselves, and while the head of the PUK has suggested three way partition, neither party has pushed hard for this solution and neither party can claim to represent Iraqi Arab interests. Arguments for partition cannot be predicated on the idea that this is what the Iraqis want. If Iraqis do eventually seek three-way partition, then there is no need to advocate the position, as they will get there of their own accord.

Sykes-Picot is dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of its burial was signed by France and Britain after 1919, when each imposed governments in Syria and Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan. It was signed by the pan-Arab nationalists of the 1940s and ’50s, when their movement crashed against the surprisingly resilient system that had been established; it was invoked again when Arab nationalism crested in the 1960s and fell back in the seventies. It was signed, too, by the minoritarian governments in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon when they violently split ethnic and sectarian divisions in the 1980s, ’90s and beyond. And it was signed most recently by ISIS, which in 2014 tweeted that Islamic State was “smashing Sykes-Picot” in establishing a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Yes, old Sykes-Picot, which was ratified one hundred years ago this month, is dead as a doornail.

Yet like Marley’s ghost, Sykes-Picot haunts the present. Death and destruction persist in the Middle East. “Think of all the places we are today trying to keep the peace,” Vice President Joseph Biden said in Baghdad in April. “They’re places where, because of history, we’ve drawn artificial lines, creating artificial states made up of totally distinct ethnic, religious, cultural groups and said: ‘Have at it. Live together.’”

It is more than a bit ironique that France has proposed to host a major conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace on May 30, exactly one hundred years to the month after it agreed to the Sykes-Picot Agreement with the United Kingdom.

Sykes-Picot, an act of secret diplomacy and geopolitical calculation, saw Paris and London agree to protectorates over a future Arab state or states in the event of an Ottoman defeat in the First World War.

If France wishes to avoid the imperial legacy of Sykes-Picot, it should commit to treating the key players in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute (Israel, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the self-determination movement of the Palestinian people) as juridical equals. It should make clear that Israel and the PLO alone are responsible for their destinies—and that France does not view them as pawns to be disposed of from afar, even if it has decided not to invite either of them to Paris.

There are three concrete steps that France can take in this direction in the lead-up to its proposed conference.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will, in its current form, come up for reauthorization in 2017. Broadly speaking, the Section 702 program targets non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, in order to acquire foreign intelligence. Over the past several years, this surveillance of the online activities of foreigners has been a critical and invaluable tool for American intelligence professionals and officials. Knowledgeable officials note that more than 25 percent of all current U.S. intelligence is based on information collected under Section 702.[1]

Still, there are those who have concerns about the program. These critics believe that the program, as currently implemented, infringes on Americans’ rights. Their concern hinges on the inevitable reality that in the course of collecting information about foreign actors, the Section 702 program will also collect information about American citizens. As a result, some opponents liken the Section 702 program to the government telephony metadata program disclosed by Edward Snowden, and characterize Section 702 as an instance of government overreach.[2] Such comparisons are misguided and unfair. The program is so vital to America’s national security that Congress should reauthorize Section 702 in its current form.

Section 702 Explained

Section 702 has its origins in President George W. Bush’s terrorist surveillance program and the Patriot Act. That program was initiated in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, on the President’s own authority. That reliance on exclusive presidential authority contributed to the controversy that initially attended the program—some vocal critics saw it as an example of executive overreach.

An allied correspondent stood in the rubble of a movie theater in Hiroshima, Japan, a month after an atomic bomb was dropped by American forces on the city. (AP Photo/Stanley Troutman, File)

EVEN AFTER SEVEN decades, the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki generates controversy. President Obama’s planned visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial next week is sure to revive once more the debate over Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs that destroyed the two Japanese cities, killing 200,000 people and forcing Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, let it be known on Tuesday that the president “will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II.” But perhaps Obamashould “revisit” that decision — not to apologize for it, but to reaffirm that it was right and just, ultimately saving countless lives, ending a terrible war, and freeing the people of Japan from a savage and fanatic regime.

However contentious it later became, the deployment of atomic firepower was not controversial in its time. On Aug. 6, 1945, as Truman announced to the nation that an atomic weapon had been used to annihilate Hiroshima, there was no hint of ambivalence in his words. “The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor,” he declared. “They have been repaid manyfold, and the end is not yet.” Far from feeling sorrow for having to unleash such gruesome force, Truman celebrated it as “the greatest achievement of organized science in history.” And he was blunt about America’s intentions:

DISTANT DESTRUCTION: Smoke rises over the Syrian town of Kobani after an airstrike in October 2014. Some Russian Islamic militants involved in fighting in Kobani had been allowed to leave Russia, according to relatives and some officials, so that they would not cause trouble at home.

For years Islamic militants in Russia were hunted by police. But then the authorities changed tack and allowed some to travel to the Middle East, sources say.

NOVOSASITLI, Russia – Four years ago, Saadu Sharapudinov was a wanted man in Russia. A member of an outlawed Islamist group, he was hiding in the forests of the North Caucasus, dodging patrols by paramilitary police and plotting a holy war against Moscow.

Then his fortunes took a dramatic turn. Sharapudinov, 38, told Reuters that in December 2012 Russian intelligence officers presented him with an unexpected offer. If he agreed to leave Russia, the authorities would not arrest him. In fact, they would facilitate his departure.

“I was in hiding, I was part of an illegal armed group, I was armed,” said Sharapudinov during an interview in a country outside Russia. Yet he says the authorities cut him a deal. “They said: ‘We want you to leave.’”

Vladimir Putin has a czarist vision of a greater Russia, and his first order of business is getting the U.S. out of Europe. To defeat him, we first must learn to play by his rules.

Recently, one of my students asked me: Why doesn’t the U.S. stop Vladimir Putin? He was no ordinary student, and this was no regular college. He was a senior military officer from an allied country, and we were at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, where I’m a professor who teaches courses on national security strategy.

He is not alone. Many wonder how Putin gets away with it again and again and again. In the past few years, Russia blitzed the country of Georgia, cyber-crushed Estonia, claimed much of the Artic as “theirs,” invaded eastern Ukraine, stole Crimea, mucked around inSyria, increased submarine patrols to Cold War levels, and is worrying Eastern Europe. The Bear is back.

Foreign policy realists, for all of their intellectual heft, have historically struggled to translate their academic theories into actual government policy. Not only have realists failed to prevent costly U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria from occurring, but they have also been unsuccessful at advocating for and implementing acceptable alternative policies in place of these interventions. By any serious metric, realism has failed to deliver on its promise of a better alternative to current American foreign policy. The long list of realist failures is even more depressing when compared to the barren list of realist successes. Reflecting on this catastrophic track record, it is understandable that some realists would seek to find a shortcut to the long, hard road to policy relevance. Some realists, therefore, aim to outsource political responsibility for their ideas to an external champion, one who could then enact realist principles by diktat once elected.

Yet the recent decision by the Center for the National Interest (where I am currently a resident junior fellow) to invite Donald Trump to deliver a major foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C. represents a new low in realism’s search for a political champion. It is indicative of the flawed and counterproductive strategy that certain parts of the broader realist movement have adopted for furthering their goals. While the Center’s leaders later claimed that they invited Trump out of a benign desire to expand the scope and tenor of the foreign policy conversation in this year’s election, this line of argument is unconvincing. The Center’s defense of the event offered several approving statements of Trump’s views, and the tone of the speech was more that of a booster rally than a serious presentation. While previous coverage by the Center’s flagship publication, The National Interest, was highly critical of Trump, this has been replaced by more moderate criticism,tentative approval, and simpering praise. Whether intended as an endorsement or not, the Center’s invitation is tantamount to tacit, if not explicit, approval of Trump’s positions. As such, it is well in line with the opportunism displayed by others who have sided with Trump, such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, and former presidential candidate Ben Carson.

When doing a cursory search of articles and commentaries about the current state of Arctic international relations, you would be forgiven if you were to think the Russians are preparing to launch a massive offensive against other Arctic states, particularly Canada. The oft-repeated narrative surrounding the Arctic is that the Russians are building up their northern military capabilities as part of their neo-imperial ambitions and to turn the Arctic into a sphere ofgeopolitical competition, tension, and conflict.

There is reason for this narrative to not only survive, but to grow in its sensationalism. Russia’s provocativeness, actions, and statements from Russian officials do little to allay fears. For scholars of foreign and defense policy, as well as casual observers, a potential conflict with the Russians in the Arctic would be of great interest. For media outlets, the idea of conflict in the Arctic continues to serve as click-bait, and so the sensationalism continues. The problem, however, is that very little of this narrative is grounded in reality.

Russia’s Defense Ministry has declassified a set of historic photos made at the legendary rocket firing range of Kapustin Yar, where all initial Soviet ballistic missiles were tested, reaching near space with the first canine cosmonauts on board.

Kapustin Yar range near Volgograd was initially used for testing military as well as meteorological and geophysical rockets. Even military projectiles usually carried scientific equipment.

The first “real” Soviet ballistic missile, the R-1 (Rocket-1), was launched on October 18, 1947. Bearing a strong resemblance to its German prototype, the captured A4 (Fau-2) missile, the R-1 had certain constructive alterations due to differences in engineering. It traveled 206.7 kilometers and deviated from the desired target by 30 kilometers.

From the Russian viewpoint, its sagging economy due to steep fall in oil prices and the strain of sanctions makes Putin welcome expanded trade and investment relations with Japan. Analysts believe that at a time when Russia is isolated from the G-7 countries, maintaining cooperative relations with Japan is not only good diplomacy, but it could also reduce Russia’s present dependence on China.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Sochi on 6 May carried a great deal of importance and publicity as it demonstrated his tenacious resolve to bring about a new turnaround in the bilateral relations which have hit a road block since the Ukraine crisis in 2014. It was Abe’s fourth visit to Russia while Putin has not visited Japan even once despite strong pressures from Tokyo.

…since he (Abe) and Putin are enjoying overwhelming political strength in their respective countries, they should exert their influence and guide their countries in the direction of finding a solution to the territorial tangle…

Now that President Barack Obama has announced his intention to visit Hiroshima later this month, many questions have been raised about whether he will proffer regret or apologize for the dropping of two nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in late 1945. Should he apologize? Given his past speeches in Cairo, Obama has been criticized by some conservative media in the United States as America’s “apologist-in-chief,” prompting the White House and Ben Rhodes to declare that the visit is to be “forward-looking,” and that it will “highlight his continued commitment to pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Interestingly, the debate on Obama’s intentions raises all sorts of questions about modern understandings of history, and about apology politics in general. To what extent should state leaders apologize for historic crimes committed before their own time? Should the United States apologize for its wrongs? Should it apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki in particular?

One of the most basic responsibilities of the U.S. government—if not the most basic—is providing for the national defense. What this general phrase means is subject to interpretation depending on whether you happen to be a defense hawk or a fiscal hawk in the Tea Party mold, but the concept is nonetheless self-explanatory: to be safe, prosperous and a stalwart ally to friends around the world, politicians in Washington need to ensure that the U.S. armed forces have the tools, money, and flexibility to do their job.

While this may sound like a simple prescription and something Republicans and Democrats could agree on (who, after all, wants a U.S. military that is weak and decrepit?), providing for the common defense has deteriorated into another partisan issue. Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration refuse to contemplate more money for defense unless congressional Republicans allow a similar increase in nondefense spending. Republicans, meanwhile, view the 1:1 ratio as not only adding to America’s ever-growing national debt, but a scheme that places leftist politics above national-security needs.

As is so often the case, which side is being principled and which side is playing politics depends on which political party you happen to support.